Speeding cyclist, Richmond Park

[mustang1]

41MPH, I could do better


A couple of things: 1) There is no law about speeding on a bike - how did the prosecution happen? Was it cycling ferociously? Anyone? Bueller?

2) Why did he admit it? I would have said: "Was I. Sorry, but I don't have a speedometer. "

Bit worried about all this low hanging fruit that ignores drivers frankly.

Take the following with salt pinch.
1. I think bike is classified as a carriage.
2. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. That's right, even if you're not involved in law related work as your profession.

 

[vickster]

If you don't know what speed you are doing in the park, don't travel faster than the cars. If they are speeding, I expect plod is more likely to do them than a cyclist. Win-win

Do you also ride faster than cars on the roads when traffic is flowing, knowing that many of those motorists will be going at or above the speed limit? Maybe get a speedo, then you would have a better indication of your speed

 

[Markymark]

Rot. You have legal guidance as to what is the drink/drive limit and how many units a glass of beer/wine etc roughly equals that. Therefore, it is of reasonable expectation for you to know whether you are under the limit or not.

Without a speedometer, there is no reasonable expectation of knowing what speed - it is purely subjective, do you feel like you are breaking the speed limit. Overtaking a car is not an indication of speed, it is an indication that you are going faster than someone else.

Disagree. The variation in blood alcohol varies so much in the strength of drink and the person's physical attributes. The law does not care.

Ultimately, the law sets a limit. Even of the law does not dictate a legal requirement to measure it, the law will still require you to be within it.

Go tell a judge that you had no speedo on your bike so I cannot be speeding and see how far it gets you.

 

[Simontm]

Take the following with salt pinch.
1. I think bike is classified as a carriage.
2. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. That's right, even if you're not involved in law related work as your profession.

Actually it is when it comes to a bike on a road - hence 'cycling furiously' etc rather than speeding.

Again the bye-law is interesting - am not saying I am in favour of bombing around the park, just that I feel an unease - much like when the judge decided that without Tevez, West Ham wouldn't have stayed up - probably but don't like the precedent set.

 

[Simontm]

If you don't know what speed you are doing in the park, don't travel faster than the cars. If they are speeding, I expect plod is more likely to do them than a cyclist. Win-win

Do you also ride faster than cars on the roads when traffic is flowing, knowing that many of those motorists will be going at or above the speed limit? Maybe get a speedo, then you would have a better indication of your speed

Erm, today. Thanks to the traffic, I was faster than the cars and filtered past them, slotting in at an appropriate place. Looking at the phone afterwards, I had not exceeded the speed limit. Most cyclists in London, I suspect have done the same.

 

[helston90]

I think if I was going to ride quickly in a location known for having a low speed limit and regular hard nose enforcers I would get a speedo- especially as not having one doesn't stand up as a defense.

 

[Simontm]

Disagree. The variation in blood alcohol varies so much in the strength of drink and the person's physical attributes. The law does not care.

Ultimately, the law sets a limit. Even of the law does not dictate a legal requirement to measure it, the law will still require you to be within it.

Go tell a judge that you had no speedo on your bike so I cannot be speeding and see how far it gets you.

That's why there are drink/drive guide lines and why there is a reasonable expectation for you to know the limits. Without accurate speedos, there cannot be the same reasonable expectation. Again, overtaking someone only indicates that you are faster than them.

Yes the law sets the limit, but what of when it is bad and seemingly contradictory like the Park bye-laws?

I would get a lawyer and argue for the Park laws to be challenged...at least if I could get a pro-bono lawyer that is

 

[Simontm]

I think if I was going to ride quickly in a location known for having a low speed limit and regular hard nose enforcers I would get a speedo- especially as not having one doesn't stand up as a defense.

Don't you go bringing that there common sense into this, it's the law we're discussing, on a chat site, on the web

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Well, one of the links you posted said a cycle lawyer was willing to do it pro-bono. Make sure they'll honour it, get your gear on and speed the park.

For Justice!

 

[Simontm]

Well, one of the links you posted said a cycle lawyer was willing to do it pro-bono. Make sure they'll honour it, get your gear on and speed the park.

For Justice!

You gonna make my uniform? No capes mind...

 

[Profpointy]

Rot. You have legal guidance as to what is the drink/drive limit and how many units a glass of beer/wine etc roughly equals that. Therefore, it is of reasonable expectation for you to know whether you are under the limit or not.

Without a speedometer, there is no reasonable expectation of knowing what speed - it is purely subjective, do you feel like you are breaking the speed limit. Overtaking a car is not an indication of speed, it is an indication that you are going faster than someone else.

Umm - on the few occasions I've done 40 on the bike I was fully aware it was bloody fast. I might not have been able to put a number on it, and I doubt I could have even read a speedo zooming along at 40

 

[vickster]

Erm, today. Thanks to the traffic, I was faster than the cars and filtered past them, slotting in at an appropriate place. Looking at the phone afterwards, I had not exceeded the speed limit. Most cyclists in London, I suspect have done the same.

Were the cars moving freely, i.e. at the speed limit. Filtering in the rush hour jam is not the same. If you were filtering, hopefully not at 30mph, which is just downright daft in heavy traffic IMO

 

[Markymark]

Umm - on the few occasions I've done 40 on the bike I was fully aware it was bloody fast. I might not have been able to put a number on it, and I doubt I could have even read a speedo zooming along at 40

Yeah, when I'm doing 40 on my bike I'm usually checking my email or looking at a map so I also find it hard to gauge my speed properly.

 

[Simontm]

Umm - on the few occasions I've done 40 on the bike I was fully aware it was bloody fast. I might not have been able to put a number on it, and I doubt I could have even read a speedo zooming along at 40

You were aware it was "bloody fast". Well, I've been going downhill thinking it was "bloody fast" only to find out afterwards that it wasn't at around 20mph and 10mph under the speed limit. This is why the law on public highways has remained as it is.

 

[Simontm]

Were the cars moving freely, i.e. at the speed limit. Filtering in the rush hour jam is not the same. If you were filtering, hopefully not at 30mph, which is just downright daft in heavy traffic IMO

Cars were moving freely but slowly. Not a jam. And thank you Viks, I would love to be able to cycle at 30mph on a flat but alas...

Listen, I am talking about the principle of how he was done, not the fact that he had done it. What happens if they introduced this to the public highway? I bet you that the probability of most of us on here being done would be high without accurate speedometers being attached to bikes.

I know the park very well and I hate cycling there - too many cyclists for one!! I just think as it stand it is a bad bye-law and was surprised that it hasn't been challenged yet.